It can be both. You hear this "well I don't know unless the plot calls for it" talk on every single superhero movie; it's just a way for those in the know to avoid giving away spoilers for upcoming films. The second that the card comes up, it's clear that the next villain of the batman series has to be Joker, regardless of whether they knew the second movie was assured or not. It was an allusion to upcoming events, plain and simple. Moving on.

Haha, trying to argue that the Joker mention at the end of BB wasn't a tease to TDK. hehe, classic.

I don't buy it, but I seem to remember Nolan or one of his partners saying that the tease wasn't necessarily intended as any indicator of the next movie, because they had no definite plans as to the story yet.
Like I said , though, I doubt that.

__________________
Little fly upon the wall,
Ain't you got no friends at all?
Wanna see God?
*splat*

You've set up a false dichotomy. The scene definitely adds to Batman Begins, that doesn't mean that Batman Begins would have sucked without it.

I mean, really?

The point of Batman Begins is in the title, "Batman Begins". That includes the world of Batman. That scene would have been an excellent scene even if no sequel had ever been made. It says that Batman will have to keep on fighting for a long time at a minimum and meet all sorts of exotic rogues.

As evidence, I submit that it is the kind of ending that a lot of fans wanted for... The Dark Knight Rises. They wanted to know that Batman would keep on fighting.

The discussion was not about whether BB would have sucked without the Joker card…the discussion was that the tease showed a greater universe while teasing what to come…much like a WW and Flash cameo would do in this movie.

I'll never understand the Superman being with Wonder Woman hate, other than it keeps Clark and Lois apart, which was the norm for over 50 years in comics. There is plenty of character and story potential there, just like there is with Wonder Woman and Batman.

Also, how come when Batman, Wonder Woman and The Flash show up as cameos/guest stars in Superman's monthly title, it's still a Superman comic, but when it's in a film, suddenly it's not a Superman movie anymore?

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

How come when Batman, Wonder Woman and The Flash show up as cameos/guest stars in Superman's monthly title, it's still a Superman comic, but when it's in a film, suddenly it's not a Superman movie anymore?

I'll never understand the Superman being with Wonder Woman hate, other than it keeps Clark and Lois apart, which was the norm for over 50 years in comics. There is plenty of character and story potential there, just like there is with Wonder Woman and Batman.

Also, how come when Batman, Wonder Woman and The Flash show up as cameos/guest stars in Superman's monthly title, it's still a Superman comic, but when it's in a film, suddenly it's not a Superman movie anymore?

This is a question that's easily answered. And you should already know why.

When you have a handful of comics for Superman that are released every month with other characters in it there's no worries bc you know next month you get more Supes.

But when you have to wait years for a legit Superman movie (let alone a franchise) the second movie has rumors of not 1 but 4 other heroes in it…

Plus baddies, plus secondary characters of Superman plus rumors of other secondary characters for the 4 other heroes…

A Superman fan starts to feel some kinda way about that. And may start saying things like, "This isn't a Superman movie anymore".

I can empathize with that.

__________________

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. ~John Kenneth Galbraith

All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward. ~Ellen Glasgow

If they announced a Cap/Ironman/Hulk film tmr, I'm curious if there would be anything but cheers from the fans. In fact most of what I see when people talk marvel is cross over excitement: "can't wait till the guardians crossover into avengers, if only wolverine could show up in avengers if only marvel had spiderman then he could mean tony...etc"

WB get's into the crossover game, and it's met with massive negativity. Will BatmanvsSuperman have enough character development with two characters? People keep asking. It certainly has a better shot of it than Age of Ultron with it's half dozen. But then again, people pick and choose when they want to care about things.

If they announced a Cap/Ironman/Hulk film tmr, I'm curious if there would be anything but cheers from the fans. In fact most of what I see when people talk marvel is cross over excitement: "can't wait till the guardians crossover into avengers, if only wolverine could show up in avengers if only marvel had spiderman then he could mean tony...etc"

WB get's into the crossover game, and it's met with massive negativity. Will BatmanvsSuperman have enough character development with two characters? People keep asking. It certainly has a better shot of it than Age of Ultron with it's half dozen. But then again, people pick and choose when they want to care about things.

That's because Marvel's crossovers were earned and DC's upcoming crossover feels more or less imposed. There's a difference. The central characters in Age Of Ultron are already developed, which allows them to focus more on story.

The MOS sequel is gonna have to overcome a lot of legwork, and that includes juggling a small handful of characters who've yet to be introduced and/or fully developed... including even it's main character, Superman.

There's plenty of cause for concern, as if the first MOS movie wasn't enough.

That's because Marvel's crossovers were earned and DC's upcoming crossover feels more or lessimposed. There's a difference. The central characters in Age Of Ultron are already developed, which allows them to focus more on story.

The MOS sequel is gonna have to overcome a lot of legwork, and that includes juggling a small handful of characters who've yet to be introduced and/or fully developed... including even it's main character, Superman.

There's plenty of cause for concern, as if the first MOS movie wasn't enough.

So speculative nonsense based feelings.

Superman is set up(much to the chagrin of detractors), and Batman, of all characters in comicdom with the exception of maybe spiderman, batman doesn't need that much introductory work at this point. This idea that things need to be done a certain way is a byproduct of the new hot thing. Before we decide that marvel's approach is the only way to go about it, how's about an open mind.

Superman is set up(much to the chagrin of detractors), and Batman, of all characters in comicdom with the exception of maybe spiderman, batman doesn't need that much introductory work at this point. This idea that things need to be done a certain way is a byproduct of the new hot thing. Before we decide that marvel's approach is the only way to go about it, how's about an open mind.

I suppose this is where I point to the successful X films.

The X-Men are a team, not a superteam. It isn't a crossover, it's its own thing. The X-Men are a team. The Avengers are a superteam.

Simple question. Assume they had made Avengers right after the first Iron Man movie in place of Iron Man 2. No solo franchises, no crossover. Just a flat out Iron Man sequel featuring Cap, Thor and Hulk. Would it have been just as good? Do you think it would have been equally as successful?

As for Superman... one of the biggest criticisms of MOS was that it's main character felt underdeveloped and underutilized. I'm sorry but that's a legitimate concern for a lot of people. We barely even got to know Clark. And now before he can even stretch his legs, he's sharing the screen with Batman and god knows who else. Again, it just feels imposed.

The X-Men are a team, not a superteam. It isn't a crossover, it's its own thing. The X-Men are a team. The Avengers are a superteam.

Simple question. Assume they had made Avengers right after the first Iron Man movie in place of Iron Man 2. No solo franchises, no crossover. Just a flat out Iron Man sequel featuring Cap, Thor and Hulk. Would it have been just as good? Do you think it would have been equally as successful?

As for Superman... one of the biggest criticisms of MOS was that it's main character felt underdeveloped and underutilized. I'm sorry but that's a legitimate concern for a lot of people. We barely even got to know Clark. And now before he can even stretch his legs, he's sharing the screen with Batman and god knows who else. Again, it just feels imposed.

I'm sorry, I was unaware this was a Justice League movie. I have heard rumors (as in unsubstantiated claims) that WW, the Flash, and Nightwing will be in this film.

So sorry, your comparison doesn't work here.

Also, we know Clark. We didn't get to see Clark the Facade (as in the mask he puts on to deflect attention from his similarities to Superman). But we did get to know Clark. There's a big difference between the two.

__________________They say… "What an unusual person. What a smashing bonnet!"

The X-Men are a team, not a superteam. It isn't a crossover, it's its own thing. The X-Men are a team. The Avengers are a superteam.

Xmen(first class for arguments sake) is a film. One in which a bunch of characters from different places in the world and origin stories come together to face a similar conflict. Among which 4(in the case of that film) were heavily featured two more so, and one in particular. We can throw titles like team and super team around but what I'm interested in is the truth of the matter. No one complains about lack of development in that film, in spite of it's sheer amount of screen time sharing.

Quote:

Simple question. Assume they had made Avengers right after the first Iron Man movie in place of Iron Man 2. No solo franchises, no crossover. Just a flat out Iron Man sequel featuring Cap, Thor and Hulk. Would it have been just as good? Do you think it would have been equally as successful?

Would it have been as successful? No, but I'm sure coming out of it Cap and the rest of them would have had more successful solos(The ironman sequel in particular). But that's neither here nor there.

Would it have been "as" good. Well I suspect they would have had to infuse more development and character work so probably. I do know it would have been different. I'd ask a similar question as to how much solo work does an xmen movie need to be good...meh.

Quote:

As for Superman... one of the biggest criticisms of MOS was that it's main character felt underdeveloped and underutilized. I'm sorry but that's a legitimate concern for a lot of people. We barely even got to know Clark. And now before he can even stretch his legs, he's sharing the screen with Batman and god knows who else. Again, it just feels imposed.

I don't see how adding another character ruins the prospect of development. If someone said this was going to be Superman vs Luthor(and heavy), it would be the same situation. People are confusing the issue based on it being another costumed hero with a name. Whereas if it was another costumed villain with a name there would be almost no argument.

All they have to do is treat batman like they did Joker in tdk. A figure the audience knows enough about. They could even treat him as a dent if they want...That's the situation wb is in with batman that marvel wasn't in with cap/thor.

I'll never understand the Superman being with Wonder Woman hate, other than it keeps Clark and Lois apart, which was the norm for over 50 years in comics. There is plenty of character and story potential there, just like there is with Wonder Woman and Batman.

Yes, there is story potential...boring story potential.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guard

Also, how come when Batman, Wonder Woman and The Flash show up as cameos/guest stars in Superman's monthly title, it's still a Superman comic, but when it's in a film, suddenly it's not a Superman movie anymore?

This is a good point, but I think the main concern is that the addition of these heroes doesn't overshadow Superman's sequel. The focus needs to be on him and stay on him. I don't mind the additions, but if their inclusion takes away from the main story then I think that will be problematic.

I'm still not totally convinced on the necessity of a cameo, but if JL is what WB wants next then that's probably the only way to go about it.

As for me...I want at least a Superman trilogy that tells 3 self-contained stories for him alone. JL and all that should be kept separate from that.

All they have to do is treat batman like they did Joker in tdk. A figure the audience knows enough about. They could even treat him as a dent if they want...That's the situation wb is in with batman that marvel wasn't in with cap/thor.

Well I can live with that. If we're to draw TDK comparisons...

Superman = Batman
Batman = Joker
Luthor = Dent

I'd be fine with that.

But again we still don't know just how involved the other DC characters are going to be.

I hope Synder thinks outside the box when it comes to Luthor. I want to really see him with a bit of a different take then what is traditional.

If I remember correctly Snyder said that the MOS universe's he'll have a lot of money but it won't be a Gene Hackman type Lex that a lot of general movie goers are used to.

This is what Goyer said in the lead up to Man of Steel.

"There is musing about Lex Luther, conversations that Zack and I have had on set, but it all depends on what happens over the next month. There are obviously those Lexcorp easter eggs in the film and clearly you can see from that, to the extent to which we can intuit things about Lex, it’s not the Gene Hackman version. This is a Bill Gates-like Lex that is probably worth 50, 60, 70 billion dollars. It’s a very different Lex."

If I remember correctly Snyder said that the MOS universe's he'll have a lot of money but it won't be a Gene Hackman type Lex that a lot of general movie goers are used to.

This is what Goyer said in the lead up to Man of Steel.

"There is musing about Lex Luther, conversations that Zack and I have had on set, but it all depends on what happens over the next month. There are obviously those Lexcorp easter eggs in the film and clearly you can see from that, to the extent to which we can intuit things about Lex, it’s not the Gene Hackman version. This is a Bill Gates-like Lex that is probably worth 50, 60, 70 billion dollars. It’s a very different Lex."

When you have a handful of comics for Superman that are released every month with other characters in it there's no worries bc you know next month you get more Supes.

But when you have to wait years for a legit Superman movie (let alone a franchise) the second movie has rumors of not 1 but 4 other heroes in it…

Plus baddies, plus secondary characters of Superman plus rumors of other secondary characters for the 4 other heroes…

A Superman fan starts to feel some kinda way about that. And may start saying things like, "This isn't a Superman movie anymore".

I can empathize with that.

I would agree and I've been in support of a BvS film , at least one done well . My concern is that WB post Nolan will try to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks , i.e., a bunch of characters for the sake of selling toys and a JLA set up , and give us a mess, ala Spiderman 3. A Superman sequel with Batman in it , along with Lex is more than enough story to tell without WW, Grayson, and any other DC characters WB wants in the film. WB did try this act before...and it resulted in a reboot of the Batman. Cameos and Easter eggs are okay .